Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
> On 05/11/2012 12:53 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> The reason why most old applications do not follow that approach (at
>> least not yet) is pretty obvious: their authors never considered it.
>> etc-overrides-lib semantics have only become a seriously considered
>> alternative fairly recently.
>>
> No.
>
> The reason is that we have FHS and the policy, so that packages
> *have* to behave the same way, and for very valid reasons which have
> been well described in this thread.
Neither the FHS, nor the policy says anything about etc-overrides-lib as
far as I can see. Neither pro or con. Do feel free to point me to the
relevant section, would I be mistaken.
The stuff in /lib are package defaults. Where the default is, in the
program, embedded, or in some file, doesn't really matter, it's an
implementation detail.
Overrides (ie, configuration) *is* in /etc, as mandated by policy.
> You have absolutely everyone (this includes very experienced DDs)
> against your idea of changing a well established Debian policy, well
> written in the debian policy manual. Please stop. It's going nowhere.
Erm, no. It's not written in the debian policy for a start, and not
everyone agrees that etc-overrides-lib is a bad idea. I for one think
it's a good idea in selected cases (systemd being one such), and no
worse - in some ways, even better - than some other existing practice
(the conf.d/ stuff I mentioned a few times elsewhere in this thread
already).
--
|8]
Reply to: